2) to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest whenever possible, and to disclose them to affected parties when they do exist;
3) to be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates based on available data;
7) to seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technical work, to acknowledge and correct errors, and to credit properly the contributions of others;
9) to avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment by false or malicious action;

I have included number 9 because of the distress that must have been caused to the families of the Bridgend suicide victims by the article in the Express.

There are ten points overall in the IEEE Code of Ethics and it appears that Coghill has violated four of them. I would say that could be grounds for Member Conduct Complaint.

Any members of IEEE interested in having a go at maintaining their organistations dignity could look at http://www.ieee.org/web/aboutus/whatis/bylaws/i-110.html#Cause_for_Expulsion

I’m in Bridgend. I have a couple of weeks during which I can wander round and actually measure EMF fields, maybe compare them to a place down the road that has lots of great big power lines & fewer suicides.

What equipment would I need, and how would I go about making such measurements?

Thanks,
Duck.

I have to wait ages for the comments to load.

Even when they’ve loaded the site frequently freezes. Or disconnects. Or substitutes a fucking insurance advert for what I’m in the middle of reading. Closinf the pop up means you have to start the whole process again.

Don’t think the problem is my software, I’m not having this hassle on other sites.

Thanks for the help. A most interesting thread. I believe it can be aptly summarized with the following adaptation from a common /. meme:

All your [basis] are belong to us!

i had the same problem. never mind that error message– javascript IS turned on in my browser (safari). i’m going to guess that it’s a problem with the site coding.

here’s a link to the comments all on one page:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/12/medicalresearch?showallcomments=true

to get there, i clicked on :
miniblog link –> read full article (scroll to bottom of article) –> go to comments –> comments all on one page

happy reading

Unfortunately the people who approve website designs for things like newspapers are more interested in making them look nice than in compatibility.

I am not a regular at the Guardian site, so perhaps I have not figured out the code, but it appears to me that the comment thread to which you pointed on 14 July has gone walkabout. Is it cached anywhere?

Why do you hold Mr Coghill to such a high standard of account?

It is self evident that Coghill is a charlatan and a mountebank and should be enough to hi-light his, and the Express’ chicanery.

It’s not a particularly high standard, your question should be easy enough for him to answer, but it’s higher than is warranted for a twonk of his standing.

Having spent some time reading the comments on the CiF website, I noticed there was a question that was asked a couple (or 58) times that may have escaped your attention.

As this blog is somewhat easier to read, I have repeated the question here. I hope you are able to provide as speedy a reply as you have to the other comments you have already addressed.

My question is….

What was the “average” distance from the mast that you were comparing against, in your study?

Yours in anticipation,

What was the “average” distance from the mast that you were comparing against, in your study?

From what I can see, amazon.com would be happy to sell the Dictionary of Fashionable Nonsense to you. For less than $10, hardcover.

*************
*************
On the comment threads:

I am flabbergasted. There is over an hour of reading material in the threads on the Coghill stuff. (links on the miniblog)

I… um, I don’t know what to say. There’s nothing to add.

Anyone interested in another Feynman Chaser? This one’s from a lecture at Cornell in 1964.

…Wait, wait — there’s a Feynman Chaser channel now. Added… yesterday! Someone has PERFECT timing.

I find it astonishing that you will stoop to pathetic attempts to smear, when all I have ever asked you for is details of your research study. Your dismal attempts at conspiracy theories do you no favours. i do not “protect” any “vested interests” as you falsely allege here and elsewhere, and if you say otherwise, then you are a liar, plainly and simply.

You refuse to answer any of even the simplest questions about your research, and there is no possible justification for this. It is a great disservice to the people of Bridgend, and to yourself. Inevitably people will look into your background to see if there is a precedent for your activities, and while you attempt to smear, everything I have said about you is absolutely true, and requires no over-interpretation: you do sell ridiculuos magnetic therapy products for cash; you do sell asphalia melatonin pills to protect against the scares you elicit on the front page of the express; you did claim that aids was caused by power cables; the list is endless.

but most important of all, you refuse to answer the simplest question about your research.

What was the “average” distance from the mast that you were comparing against, in your study?

You refuse to answer this simple question. You refuse to answer it, to great hilarity, over the course of this enormous and rather epic Commentisfree thread:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/12/medicalresearch?showallcomments=true

which is possibly one of the most informative and revealing of such threads i have ever seen.

Why will you not answer the simplest question about your research, Mr Coghill?

Why?